December 2, 2025 • 29 mins
A transgender OnlyFans star's lie about Charlie Kirk is going viral. I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, YouTube star and self-described conspiracy theorist Candace Owens is NOT happy about the way foreign governments and the Trump administration are responding to her latest outlandish claims.
Send me a voice note: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
Check out the merch: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
Support My Show: https://linktr.ee/bradpolumbo
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Harley Kirk was subscribed to my spicy site.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Another day, another lie going viral on the Internet faster
than anybody cares to correct it. We're going to break
down the latest trauma and fake news spreading across TikTok
and so much more on today's episode of The Bread
(00:24):
Versus Everyone Podcast, my daily show where we take on
the craziest ideas from across social media and the Internet,
all from an independent political perspective. Guys, like I mentioned,
we got to talk about fake news and about stuff
that is just being uncritically circulated by people with an
acts to grind, even though it may well mean aligning
(00:47):
a dead man for no reason, causing unnecessary pain and
suffering to his family. And of course I'm referring to
Charlie Kirk, the late conservative activist who was killed in September,
who of course was like Nerod and his opinions were controversial. Sure,
but there's a unique hatred that's festering online towards him still.
(01:08):
And we already covered the outright support from some quarters
for his brutal assassination. Yet now something different is happening,
but it's still disturbing. It's different, but it's a different
type of sick. People are now spreading total lies and
made up nonsense about him to attempt to embarrass him
or disgrace his legacy, and it's getting millions and millions
(01:30):
of views online from people just eating it up. The
short version is that a transgender OnlyFans star went public
with allegations that Charlie Kirk was subscribed to her OnlyFans account,
which is like a pay per view subscription pornography account,
using his full real name, and actually sent her tens
(01:53):
of thousands of dollars and she posted one receipt. Now,
she's since made her videos private and privated many of
her social media accounts. However, others took her claim and
ran with it, and it's now blowing up on TikTok. First,
here's this original video, and be sure to watch this
with your critical thinking hats on, because a couple massive
(02:16):
red flags about the veracity of this claim should pop
out to you from the get go. Let's watch Haarley.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Kirk was subscribed to my spicy site. I know this
may cone as a shock to most of you because
he was so adamant at speaking out against my.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Community, but it well because it's not true.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Right to bring this to the surface so everyone can
see how Republican men are secretly in love with the dogs.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
All right.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Here is a photo from my spicy site of the
legal name taken from the credit card used to subscribe,
and how much money he spent on me.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
So let that sink in, folks. I don't care how
many seasoned assist emails his king tries to send me,
and I don't care how much haush money they try
to give me. The truth is out, babe, and it hurts.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Is the truth in the room with us? Because you'd
said a lot of things, just none of them happened
to be true or established fact, and some of it
is objectively not true. For example, claiming that that name
in the receipt that this influencer provided proves that it's
Charlie Kirk because it comes from his credit card. It
does not come from his credit card. OnlyFans does not
(03:32):
give creators access to that information. It's just a blank
display name that anyone can put anything they want, so
that could be anyone who's changed their name to that
could even just be an edited screenshot. And when fact
checkers looked into this, they found that there was nothing there,
as we will go through, and that this wasn't in
fact proof. Also, I love how she says she got
all these seasoned desist emails but didn't show any of them.
(03:56):
I don't know, maybe they send her. Some could be true,
but I think she would show receipts of that. And
this just doesn't pass the sniff test. Even if it's
true that some Republican men who are very anti gay
or very outspoken against trans people might be on the DL,
might be low key interested in that kind of thing,
Charlie Kirk, whatever you think of him, wasn't a stupid man.
(04:18):
And the idea that he would, with his first, middle
and last name attached, subscribe to a trans woman's OnlyFans
and send her thirty thousand dollars worth of direct paid
messages is just so obviously stupid and so clearly something
you would never do as a public figure who you
(04:39):
know you're under intense scrutiny and you know most of
the trans community doesn't like you and would expose you that.
I'm not going to say it's impossible, because people do
sometimes do incredibly stupid things, but it is so jaw
droppingly ridiculous, an assertion that it should not be believed
or taken at face value absent extraordin evidence, and instead
(05:01):
we don't have evidence at all, as you will come
to see. But that doesn't stop influencers who hate Charlie
Kirk and want to dance on his grave from just
spreading it like wildfire. Here is one man's video, one
left wing guy who shared this breaking news basically saying
that it's true, although yeah, he basically just parrots it
as fact even though it's really not, and he got
(05:24):
millions of views across multiple videos where he just parroted
this smear. Charlie's family kids be damned. Ha ha ha.
Let's lie about my political opponents and mock them while
they're in the grave. Oh yeah, great stuff. Let's watch Charlie.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
Kirk spent thirty thousand dollars with a trans woman on
an of site and now those reports are blowing up
all over TikTok as the influencer has come out and
accused Charlie Kirk of spending thirty grand on her site.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
And the last.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Activity on the site was on September tenth, which is
obviously the day he passed away. This is incredible. I
am former mlbagent Joshua Cousnick. It's not incredible that he
passed away. That sucks. I wish he was still here
to answer for this. The assassination was one of the
worst things to happen for American discourse and obviously to
his family. I wish he was here to answer for
(06:21):
all of this. Like every evangelical who is hateful and
bigoted towards that community and then gets outed as a
consumer of that community, this does not come as a
shock to anyone that has paid close attention to like
the relationship between Cantizo and Erica Kirk and Charlie Kirk.
But do I believe this story from this influencer one
(06:41):
hundred percent?
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Well, he sings lovely and totally like a very legitimate
source of information that millions of people should be trusting God.
The worst thing Trump like, set aside your thoughts on
the law itself, which I did not support, But the
worst thing Trump did for political discourse was save TikTok. Honestly,
low key, but this guy, it's kind of nauseating actually
(07:03):
to hear him pretend to care about Charlie Kirk's family,
be like, oh, it's said that he got shot for
his family in the same breath as he is for
money or for publicity, spreading defamatory gossip about this dead man, who,
of course if he actually was subscribed to and only
which we have no reasonablieve that's true. But if it
(07:25):
was true, then he would be of course, you know,
deeply hypocritical, breaking his commitments to his marriage, his statements
about pornography, and not even getting into the whole transgender
aspect of it. So what you are doing is you're
making very serious allegations, calling into question the personal character
of this dead man, based on nothing, based on a
(07:47):
fleeting allegation that she quickly privated because she's probably going
to get sued, I would imagine, and if not, she's
at least worried about it. And you're just running with
it as fact, and you don't give a damn about
the consequences or even looking into it for two seconds
before spreading this information, because if you did, you'd realize
that it doesn't actually even make sense at face value.
(08:09):
So Snops fact checked this, and guys, Snopes is a
liberal leaning fact checker, they would love to find her
on Charlie Kirk if they could, but even they had
to admit there's no here here at all. So Snopes
headline reads the rumor that Charlie Kirk subscribed to a
trans influencer's OnlyFans lacks evidence. The rumor relied on an
(08:29):
unverified screenshot that did not prove the slain conservative activist
was the user behind the account. In short, Snopes fines
there was no verifiable evidence Kirk subscribed to the Only
Fans creator or that he sent her thirty thousand dollars.
The screenshot at the center of the claim showed only
a display name, which subscribers can freely choose and change
(08:51):
at any time, not an official or verified name. Because
of this, the circulating image does not establish the count
belonged to Kirk. So this woman who said that, like
in their original video, either lied or doesn't even know
how her own business works. Because she said it was
the name taken from the credit card. It's not OnlyFans
has the credit card information, but they do not give
(09:13):
it to the creators. And then Snobs asked her for
more proof, for more verification, and she goes to them. Shocker.
So they were right. We contacted the user who first
made the allegation and asked whether she could provide any
verifiable evidence to substantiate her claim. Requested an unedited screen
recording of her OnlyFans dashboard showing the alleged subscriber, along
(09:37):
with any metadata, payment confirmations, or communication logs that could
link the account to Kirk. We also reached out to
OnlyFans seeking additional information. We will update this article if
we receive a response, and they didn't. They did not,
in fact receive a response. Huh. It's almost like if
(09:57):
she really had thirty thousand dollars worth of private messages,
she could have shown some of them to prove that
it was Charlie Kirk messaging back and forth with her,
but she didn't. She really had credit card receipts, which
OnlyFans does not give creators, then she could show them,
but she doesn't have anything, and it's just gossip and lies.
(10:18):
Now there's another element to this as well. Somebody tried
to verify this in a kind of creative way. So
what they did is this person on Twitter is named
Jason Sawyer, and he writes to check if the account
was legit I registered in OnlyFans under owned the libs
seventeen seventy six. Now that's the username that this supposed
screenshot of Charlie Kirk used. Jason writes, it went through instantly,
(10:42):
proving the story false. Of doesn't allow duplicate usernames, so
the handle couldn't have belonged to anyone else. So what
he is saying is that he went and made an
OnlyFans account with the username that this person says Charlie
was messaging them under, and it let them meaning no
account exists. So unless the account was deleted in the
(11:05):
last few days or something, then the account didn't exist
at the time, or and it's a fake screenshot, or
somebody just edited the screenshot to say you use her
name that it didn't actually say. And that's my suspicion here.
My suspicion here is that what we have is an
OnlyFans marketing gimmick gone wrong. This OnlyFans creator did what
(11:26):
they all do because it's such a destructive incentive structure
where all these creators have to try to compete with
each other to get noticed and get more subscribers. And
she made this up think it would be funny and
it might go viral, and it might get her more
of subs, then panic that she's going to get sued
privated her accounts, but other people keep running with it
and spreading it, and all the while, Charlie Kirk's kids
(11:49):
may see this on their feeds. One day they have
their friends ask them about it, because I can tell
you everywhere you go there's millions of people sharing this
on social media believing it fully. So what you have
is somebody who potentially exploited the family of a victim
of a terror attack, really an attack on American values,
to monetize their only fans. It's truly sick, sick stuff,
(12:13):
if you ask me. And it's so just symbolic of
the things corroding online culture and turning our discourse into
poison every single day. But other than that, they're doing
amazing over on TikTok. Gosh, this is kind of a
new low. I mean not really. I'm sure they'll do
(12:35):
something else tomorrow equally or even more horrifying. But there
you have it, folks, the latest vira rely on TikTok,
this time about Charlie Kirk. Y'all, let me know what
you think in the comments below. Make sure subscribe to
the like button and all of that. Now, guys, we
got to check in with the right wing YouTube star
(12:57):
Candice Owens, who you'll remember we talked about recent because
she alleged a grand conspiracy meant to kill her or
assassinate her, involving the French government, the Macrones, Emmanuel Macrone
and his wife. I don't know Bridgitte Macrone, who Candace
(13:18):
claims as a trans may a transwoman. I have no idea,
I don't care really, And anyway, she alleged. Candace alleged
this international conspiracy to assassinate her from the Macrones and
reported it. We talked about it and the various reasons
that it's implausible to say the least they were actively
suing her at the same time and presumably want their
(13:38):
day in court. And also her series about exposing Brigitte,
if you believe it, is already out there and will
only get more popular in the event of Candace's death.
So for heads of state to take the enormous risk
of attempting to have someone assassinated a US citizen all
to what killed them and then the series blows up more,
it never made sense at face about you, but Candace
(14:00):
ran with it. She made international headlines about it, but
she is not happy about the way that it is received.
And she also seems to think that the response or
lack thereof, somehow proves her right. But I'm not sure
I buy that. Let's look at this first clip from
Candace's big episode. She dropped after her week off where
(14:23):
she went into hiding or whatever, which she broadcasts from home.
So I'm not sure why she had to do that,
but whatever, here's what she had to say, suggesting that
the Macrome's lack of a statement denying it means they
are guilty. Let's listen now.
Speaker 5 (14:39):
If you are, in fact, currently at this moment, the
first man of France, that would be Brigitte Macron.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
I'm sorry, she is funny. Love her, hate Candace if
you like me, think she's alone to her at this point,
she is funny and this image is diabolical. The just
casual referred to Brigite as the first man is humorous.
But I do not endorse these claims. I cannot verify
Brigidees genitals and I don't really care too Ron, and.
Speaker 5 (15:10):
You are currently suing a podcaster in America named Candace
Owens for defamation for telling the truth right, and the
story that you are trying to sell to the public
is that you were really, deep down in your heart,
you really believe that you are a woman, and Cannas
is just crazy and desperate for clicks and willing to
defane you for money. And Candace Owens publicly proclaiming and
(15:35):
accusing you of something not akin to directly implicated in
her assassination, a claim which has gone viral. When I
say viral, I mean just the tweet alone had over
one hundred thousand retweets and forty five million impressions on
ex alone.
Speaker 6 (15:51):
Okay, this would.
Speaker 5 (15:52):
Be your unique opportunity, as the French first man, to
prove your case about Candace to the public, right in
the court of public opinion. This would be your time
to slam dunk. Remember, the French couple has been so
psychotically obsessed with trying to paint me as conflicted in
my reporting that they even hired a private investigator to
(16:15):
try to see if I was colluding with other state actors.
Speaker 6 (16:19):
You know they holor I.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Already have a couple of questions, but one of which
is why would just like, why would they sue you
if they were also just planning to have you killed.
Why would they spend all this money having a private
investigator look into you if they were just going to
have you killed. See how she adds these pieces to
the puzzle thinking they advance her narrative, but then doesn't
think about them critically, and so even when they're actually
(16:42):
undercutting her narrative, she just moves along. She just keeps
him moving. And that's true about this whole non statement
from Emmanuel Macron or first may on her first lady,
Brigitte Macrone. Let's keep listening here.
Speaker 5 (16:56):
You know, they kind of gloriously insinuated that I might
be working with Russia. They paid for that, They paid
for that investigation. So using that logic, wouldn't this be
the opportunity, if you're the French couple, to come out
and to prove your point, to make us stunning and
a swift statement. Right, We are shocked by the accusation.
Of course, never in a million years. Oh we told
(17:17):
you guys, this is just for clicks, It's for money.
This is beyond anything we've ever heard. I hope Candice
gets well soon. That would be what I would say
you should do if I'm advising you from a PR statement.
Standpoint right, in American basketball terms, this is like a
flagrant foul and you now get some free throws.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Right.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
If you're the French couple, you're going to spend hundreds
of thousands of dollars in legal fees, investigative fees, and
PR fees in a country on the other side of
the Atlantic trying.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Again, they're going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
in legal fees and private investigator fees, but also pay
to have you killed. Wouldn't that be very wasteful and
not make sense if we're indulging this theory. But I
don't think that thought crossed Candace's mind.
Speaker 5 (18:03):
Trying desperately to paint me as a lunatic, and I
give you the opportunity to spike the ball to prove
and I'm a lunatic and you.
Speaker 6 (18:10):
Don't do it.
Speaker 5 (18:11):
No, they didn't do it, did they com paying attention,
They did not do it. It's now been a full
week since I made an announcement, and here is the
official response issued by the Las Palace.
Speaker 6 (18:24):
Nothing.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Nothing, Candace. She really is so entertaining, and she does
have a flare for the dramatic, so I think she
could actually be, you know, a neutral force, like a
neutral chaotic force, if she just stuck the celebrity gossip
or entertainment news rather than geopolitics and convincing everybody that
(18:46):
every conspiracy theory ever is actually true, and just sowing
immense distrust and discord in us of politics and institutions
beyond what is warranted, which is certainly some degree. But yeah,
the problem here is to one is that Candace is
not thinking about the fact that the Macrones are an
active litigation against Candace, and yet she's shocked that they're
(19:10):
not making public statements about her. That is what lawyers
typically advise in the middle of a court case, is
that you not publicly speak about the person you're in
court with because a statement you make could be used
against you or something could be twisted. It's like that
is pretty standard legal advice. So there is a very
innocuous explanation for why they would not put out a statement. Also,
(19:35):
them putting out a statement would call more attention to it.
I do agree that it did go viral. It already
was getting a lot of attention, but that would also
cause even more attention to be paid towards these outlandish allegations,
and it would almost kind of legitimize them in a way.
But even if you don't accept that part of it,
there is a good reason they would stay silent. That's
because they're an active litigation. And Candace has clearly chosen
(19:57):
to ignore that advice and keep talking about them. And
I can't understand why she would do that, but she
has to know that. I'm sure her lawyers advised her,
you know, probably would be best if you didn't talk
about Bridgie while we're litigating this, And she says, sorry,
but I have to. I feel it to my duty
as a journalist or truth teller or whatever. And I
can respect that, But don't act like it's crazy that
people would not actively talk about somebody that are in
(20:18):
a lawsuit with That's standard practice actually. And two, the
thing about this is you can't make an outlandish claim,
like a wild outlandish international conspiracy based on just an
anonymous source told you so, and not offer any proof
and then just use the lack of a denial as confirmation. Somehow,
You're going to need more than that for your extraordinary claims.
(20:41):
You're actually gonna need some extraordinary evidence and Also, the
funniest part about this is if, and she's literally done
this in the past, if they had put out a
statement denouncing her and denying the allegations, Candice would have
said that was the proof that she was onto something.
She would have gone the whole a hit dog route
and said, oh, they put out the whole French government
(21:04):
put out this long press release just about me, Candace
Owens the podcaster. They seem really concerned, really defensive. It's
almost like I'm over the target. That's exactly how she
would have spun it. So either way, she set herself
up with this unfalsifiable narrative and this perspective where instead
of seeking the truth, she's just seeking confirmation for the
(21:24):
things that she maybe earnestly believes are true but I
don't think are and in this case I do. She
mentioned a bunch of times, oh, people think I'm making
it up, making it up in this full video, which
I did watch. When I don't just play clips of her,
I watched the full episodes, even though they're very hard
to follow if you're not schizophrenic or postpartum psychotic. They
at one point she claimed that Britain didn't have a
(21:48):
monarch during the Revolutionary War, like she doesn't believe that
they did. I guess Candice Owens is a King George
the Third Truther, which I didn't know was a thing,
but okay, Anyway, she goes on these long rant and
(22:08):
so at one point she did mention that in the podcast,
and she kept telling people, people think I'm making it up.
I wouldn't make this up. I don't think she's make
it up. I think a hoaxter or a crazy person
sent her this tip that she's the subject of this
plot and that it's not true, but that she did
receive the tip and fell for it. I don't think
she's just inventing this all out of whole cloth. She
(22:28):
seems too much like a true believer to me for that,
and that would just be a very reckless thing to
do in the middle of an active defamation lawsuit. Do
something with actual malice, for sure. Now, Candice was not
just going off about the mat Crohnes and the First
Man of Friends or First Lady, depending on your perspective. There.
She was also targeting the US government and the Trump
(22:51):
administration and suggesting that they seem to not care about
this bombshell she's presented them with, and that could only
possibly be because they're in on it or something, not
because they think she's crazy or have investigated this extensively
and none of it is real. Anyway, Let's watch her
speak about the Trump administration and the various branches of
the federal government she contacted about this.
Speaker 5 (23:13):
Let's listen, the White House is the balls very firmly
in their court, and a week later, this is the
official White House response.
Speaker 6 (23:24):
So what are we to make of that?
Speaker 2 (23:25):
You guys, Well, Candace, I'm going to hold your hand
when I say this. They think you're crazy. Even Trump,
who loves some of conspiracy theory, who loves all sorts
of crazy people, thinks you're frickin' nuts. And they appreciate
your support in the past and are concerned about you,
(23:45):
so they don't want to go out of their way
to release statements debunking you or shitting on you. But
they don't want to say anything that will encourage you,
and they think you're insane and just want to stay
far away from you. That is the most logical way.
You could also interpret it as some of some grand
international conspiracy, but again, the Okham's razor here the most
(24:05):
likely explanation is just that even Trump thinks you're nuts.
But go off, Queen.
Speaker 5 (24:13):
Now, in terms of formal replies that we received from
government structures, the only department that we did hear back, well,
firstly say, I did not at all hear back from
the FBI. On the American side, I did hear back
from the counter Terrorism Unit.
Speaker 6 (24:29):
I did hear back from the White House.
Speaker 5 (24:31):
Confirming that that message had been delivered on Trump's desk,
me saying that I had the information. I guess he
didn't want to inquire further, which is interesting. But the
FBI left me on read. And I will say I
didn't go through an official channel and send an email,
and I showed that. But I did send a text
message to somebody very high up who received the text
(24:52):
message no response.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
Let's unpack that for a second. Guys, so you're a
subject of a an assassination plot, and rather than file
an official report or complaint with the FBI, you texted
somebody that works there. Now, I'm going to guess that
it was maybe Dan Bongino, who I think Candice had
a relationship with in the past, or maybe Cash Betel.
(25:16):
So it might even have been the FBI director or
the deputy FBI director, high ranking FBI officials. But when
a crime is occurring or has occurred against you, you
don't text people personally on their cells, right like you
inform the police, you make an official police report or
complaint or FBI complaint or report. And the fact that
(25:36):
she didn't even do that and instead chose to text
these people is suspicious, especially because filing a false official
report with the FBI is a crime, but simply texting
someone something made up to their personal cell phone or
whatever is not. So maybe she's trying to cover herself there.
I don't know, but it is not making me take
(25:58):
your while varies more seriously that you decided to text
Dan Mangino or cash MATEL or someone about this rather
than actually formally contact the FBI with all your proof
and receipts that you totally trusted and vetted but just
didn't show us. Yeah, where, this is not how you
do that. And I would love to see that text,
(26:21):
because I I'm just going to be honest. I imagine
it would very closely resemble the text that some people
get from like their schizophrenic family member. I'm sorry, no,
Tin no shade. I hope she gets help, but all right,
let's listen to the rest of this.
Speaker 6 (26:42):
Now.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
I thought that the claim of the French Foreign Legion
being involved in Charlie's asassination.
Speaker 6 (26:49):
I thought the FBI might be interested.
Speaker 5 (26:52):
No, no phone calls, even from Utah's FBI branch have.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
Well it's almost like they've extensively investigated the entire shooting
and they know there were no French legionnaires involved. So
you telling them there were isn't like? Oh, guys, well,
Candice told the I don't know. It becomes hard to
even follow her. Like I did listen to this full episode,
(27:17):
and it is so so incoherent a storyline. She starts
rambling about buildings in Delaware and who owns them and
why how some are owned by French people and Egyptian people. Like, remember, guys,
this is one of the biggest podcasters in the world
and in America. She is not a crazy person fringe
(27:39):
on the internet.
Speaker 6 (27:42):
Not great branch have come into me either.
Speaker 5 (27:45):
Why didn't you want to see aren't we supposed to
be investigating the Charlie Kirk assassination.
Speaker 6 (27:49):
It was totally not a state operation.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
And oh that's the other thing, she keeps accusing the
Trump administration basically directly, like she said, it's a military op,
and she she keeps saying they murdered him. And then
she's like, but why don't they want to text me back?
Maybe because you accuse them of murdering their friend. I'm
not sure I'd be returning your calls either, Canvas, if
(28:12):
you were spreading insane lies about me that led to
mass harassment and millions of people believing that I'm a murderer.
Speaker 5 (28:18):
Just me, though, and they really want to get to
the truth, which explains why nobody.
Speaker 6 (28:24):
Called no Utah not interested.
Speaker 5 (28:26):
I'm actually surprised Tyler Robinson's lawyer hasn't reached out to me.
Speaker 6 (28:31):
What's going on here?
Speaker 5 (28:32):
Oh, we've got to protect the patsy, right, We've got
to protect the passy in the situation.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
That last part is kind of funny because, of course,
the suspect who allegedly killed Charlie Kirk and is facing
prosecution for it, his lawyer they have pleaded not guilty,
which good luck with that. I mean, there's DNA evidence
and very extensive documentary evidence and other things. But yeah,
why haven't they contacted me? Because I don't think that
(28:59):
you would be helpful to their case unless they were
going for maybe not guilty by way of insanity. Maybe
then they could use your expertise canvas. I don't know, guys,
what do you think of the one of the biggest
podcasters in the world. To me, it is a parent
that she is not coping well. But that's just my
take and I think it will continue to spiral. But
(29:22):
as long as she continues to get millions of views
on her very frequent, heavily sponsored Leyden episodes, I think
the incentive structures are there for her to keep doing
this and to frankly take it even further. What do
y'all think? Let me know in the comments, Make sure
subscribe to the like button, YadA YadA yah, and that'll
(29:42):
be it for today's episode the Brad Versus Everyone Podcast.
Thanks so much for tuning in, and we will talk
again real so
Harley Kirk was subscribed to my spicy site.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Another day, another lie going viral on the Internet faster
than anybody cares to correct it. We're going to break
down the latest trauma and fake news spreading across TikTok
and so much more on today's episode of The Bread
(00:24):
Versus Everyone Podcast, my daily show where we take on
the craziest ideas from across social media and the Internet,
all from an independent political perspective. Guys, like I mentioned,
we got to talk about fake news and about stuff
that is just being uncritically circulated by people with an
acts to grind, even though it may well mean aligning
(00:47):
a dead man for no reason, causing unnecessary pain and
suffering to his family. And of course I'm referring to
Charlie Kirk, the late conservative activist who was killed in September,
who of course was like Nerod and his opinions were controversial. Sure,
but there's a unique hatred that's festering online towards him still.
(01:08):
And we already covered the outright support from some quarters
for his brutal assassination. Yet now something different is happening,
but it's still disturbing. It's different, but it's a different
type of sick. People are now spreading total lies and
made up nonsense about him to attempt to embarrass him
or disgrace his legacy, and it's getting millions and millions
(01:30):
of views online from people just eating it up. The
short version is that a transgender OnlyFans star went public
with allegations that Charlie Kirk was subscribed to her OnlyFans account,
which is like a pay per view subscription pornography account,
using his full real name, and actually sent her tens
(01:53):
of thousands of dollars and she posted one receipt. Now,
she's since made her videos private and privated many of
her social media accounts. However, others took her claim and
ran with it, and it's now blowing up on TikTok. First,
here's this original video, and be sure to watch this
with your critical thinking hats on, because a couple massive
(02:16):
red flags about the veracity of this claim should pop
out to you from the get go. Let's watch Haarley.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Kirk was subscribed to my spicy site. I know this
may cone as a shock to most of you because
he was so adamant at speaking out against my.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Community, but it well because it's not true.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Right to bring this to the surface so everyone can
see how Republican men are secretly in love with the dogs.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
All right.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Here is a photo from my spicy site of the
legal name taken from the credit card used to subscribe,
and how much money he spent on me.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
So let that sink in, folks. I don't care how
many seasoned assist emails his king tries to send me,
and I don't care how much haush money they try
to give me. The truth is out, babe, and it hurts.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Is the truth in the room with us? Because you'd
said a lot of things, just none of them happened
to be true or established fact, and some of it
is objectively not true. For example, claiming that that name
in the receipt that this influencer provided proves that it's
Charlie Kirk because it comes from his credit card. It
does not come from his credit card. OnlyFans does not
(03:32):
give creators access to that information. It's just a blank
display name that anyone can put anything they want, so
that could be anyone who's changed their name to that
could even just be an edited screenshot. And when fact
checkers looked into this, they found that there was nothing there,
as we will go through, and that this wasn't in
fact proof. Also, I love how she says she got
all these seasoned desist emails but didn't show any of them.
(03:56):
I don't know, maybe they send her. Some could be true,
but I think she would show receipts of that. And
this just doesn't pass the sniff test. Even if it's
true that some Republican men who are very anti gay
or very outspoken against trans people might be on the DL,
might be low key interested in that kind of thing,
Charlie Kirk, whatever you think of him, wasn't a stupid man.
(04:18):
And the idea that he would, with his first, middle
and last name attached, subscribe to a trans woman's OnlyFans
and send her thirty thousand dollars worth of direct paid
messages is just so obviously stupid and so clearly something
you would never do as a public figure who you
(04:39):
know you're under intense scrutiny and you know most of
the trans community doesn't like you and would expose you that.
I'm not going to say it's impossible, because people do
sometimes do incredibly stupid things, but it is so jaw
droppingly ridiculous, an assertion that it should not be believed
or taken at face value absent extraordin evidence, and instead
(05:01):
we don't have evidence at all, as you will come
to see. But that doesn't stop influencers who hate Charlie
Kirk and want to dance on his grave from just
spreading it like wildfire. Here is one man's video, one
left wing guy who shared this breaking news basically saying
that it's true, although yeah, he basically just parrots it
as fact even though it's really not, and he got
(05:24):
millions of views across multiple videos where he just parroted
this smear. Charlie's family kids be damned. Ha ha ha.
Let's lie about my political opponents and mock them while
they're in the grave. Oh yeah, great stuff. Let's watch Charlie.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
Kirk spent thirty thousand dollars with a trans woman on
an of site and now those reports are blowing up
all over TikTok as the influencer has come out and
accused Charlie Kirk of spending thirty grand on her site.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
And the last.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Activity on the site was on September tenth, which is
obviously the day he passed away. This is incredible. I
am former mlbagent Joshua Cousnick. It's not incredible that he
passed away. That sucks. I wish he was still here
to answer for this. The assassination was one of the
worst things to happen for American discourse and obviously to
his family. I wish he was here to answer for
(06:21):
all of this. Like every evangelical who is hateful and
bigoted towards that community and then gets outed as a
consumer of that community, this does not come as a
shock to anyone that has paid close attention to like
the relationship between Cantizo and Erica Kirk and Charlie Kirk.
But do I believe this story from this influencer one
(06:41):
hundred percent?
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Well, he sings lovely and totally like a very legitimate
source of information that millions of people should be trusting God.
The worst thing Trump like, set aside your thoughts on
the law itself, which I did not support, But the
worst thing Trump did for political discourse was save TikTok. Honestly,
low key, but this guy, it's kind of nauseating actually
(07:03):
to hear him pretend to care about Charlie Kirk's family,
be like, oh, it's said that he got shot for
his family in the same breath as he is for
money or for publicity, spreading defamatory gossip about this dead man, who,
of course if he actually was subscribed to and only
which we have no reasonablieve that's true. But if it
(07:25):
was true, then he would be of course, you know,
deeply hypocritical, breaking his commitments to his marriage, his statements
about pornography, and not even getting into the whole transgender
aspect of it. So what you are doing is you're
making very serious allegations, calling into question the personal character
of this dead man, based on nothing, based on a
(07:47):
fleeting allegation that she quickly privated because she's probably going
to get sued, I would imagine, and if not, she's
at least worried about it. And you're just running with
it as fact, and you don't give a damn about
the consequences or even looking into it for two seconds
before spreading this information, because if you did, you'd realize
that it doesn't actually even make sense at face value.
(08:09):
So Snops fact checked this, and guys, Snopes is a
liberal leaning fact checker, they would love to find her
on Charlie Kirk if they could, but even they had
to admit there's no here here at all. So Snopes
headline reads the rumor that Charlie Kirk subscribed to a
trans influencer's OnlyFans lacks evidence. The rumor relied on an
(08:29):
unverified screenshot that did not prove the slain conservative activist
was the user behind the account. In short, Snopes fines
there was no verifiable evidence Kirk subscribed to the Only
Fans creator or that he sent her thirty thousand dollars.
The screenshot at the center of the claim showed only
a display name, which subscribers can freely choose and change
(08:51):
at any time, not an official or verified name. Because
of this, the circulating image does not establish the count
belonged to Kirk. So this woman who said that, like
in their original video, either lied or doesn't even know
how her own business works. Because she said it was
the name taken from the credit card. It's not OnlyFans
has the credit card information, but they do not give
(09:13):
it to the creators. And then Snobs asked her for
more proof, for more verification, and she goes to them. Shocker.
So they were right. We contacted the user who first
made the allegation and asked whether she could provide any
verifiable evidence to substantiate her claim. Requested an unedited screen
recording of her OnlyFans dashboard showing the alleged subscriber, along
(09:37):
with any metadata, payment confirmations, or communication logs that could
link the account to Kirk. We also reached out to
OnlyFans seeking additional information. We will update this article if
we receive a response, and they didn't. They did not,
in fact receive a response. Huh. It's almost like if
(09:57):
she really had thirty thousand dollars worth of private messages,
she could have shown some of them to prove that
it was Charlie Kirk messaging back and forth with her,
but she didn't. She really had credit card receipts, which
OnlyFans does not give creators, then she could show them,
but she doesn't have anything, and it's just gossip and lies.
(10:18):
Now there's another element to this as well. Somebody tried
to verify this in a kind of creative way. So
what they did is this person on Twitter is named
Jason Sawyer, and he writes to check if the account
was legit I registered in OnlyFans under owned the libs
seventeen seventy six. Now that's the username that this supposed
screenshot of Charlie Kirk used. Jason writes, it went through instantly,
(10:42):
proving the story false. Of doesn't allow duplicate usernames, so
the handle couldn't have belonged to anyone else. So what
he is saying is that he went and made an
OnlyFans account with the username that this person says Charlie
was messaging them under, and it let them meaning no
account exists. So unless the account was deleted in the
(11:05):
last few days or something, then the account didn't exist
at the time, or and it's a fake screenshot, or
somebody just edited the screenshot to say you use her
name that it didn't actually say. And that's my suspicion here.
My suspicion here is that what we have is an
OnlyFans marketing gimmick gone wrong. This OnlyFans creator did what
(11:26):
they all do because it's such a destructive incentive structure
where all these creators have to try to compete with
each other to get noticed and get more subscribers. And
she made this up think it would be funny and
it might go viral, and it might get her more
of subs, then panic that she's going to get sued
privated her accounts, but other people keep running with it
and spreading it, and all the while, Charlie Kirk's kids
(11:49):
may see this on their feeds. One day they have
their friends ask them about it, because I can tell
you everywhere you go there's millions of people sharing this
on social media believing it fully. So what you have
is somebody who potentially exploited the family of a victim
of a terror attack, really an attack on American values,
to monetize their only fans. It's truly sick, sick stuff,
(12:13):
if you ask me. And it's so just symbolic of
the things corroding online culture and turning our discourse into
poison every single day. But other than that, they're doing
amazing over on TikTok. Gosh, this is kind of a
new low. I mean not really. I'm sure they'll do
(12:35):
something else tomorrow equally or even more horrifying. But there
you have it, folks, the latest vira rely on TikTok,
this time about Charlie Kirk. Y'all, let me know what
you think in the comments below. Make sure subscribe to
the like button and all of that. Now, guys, we
got to check in with the right wing YouTube star
(12:57):
Candice Owens, who you'll remember we talked about recent because
she alleged a grand conspiracy meant to kill her or
assassinate her, involving the French government, the Macrones, Emmanuel Macrone
and his wife. I don't know Bridgitte Macrone, who Candace
(13:18):
claims as a trans may a transwoman. I have no idea,
I don't care really, And anyway, she alleged. Candace alleged
this international conspiracy to assassinate her from the Macrones and
reported it. We talked about it and the various reasons
that it's implausible to say the least they were actively
suing her at the same time and presumably want their
(13:38):
day in court. And also her series about exposing Brigitte,
if you believe it, is already out there and will
only get more popular in the event of Candace's death.
So for heads of state to take the enormous risk
of attempting to have someone assassinated a US citizen all
to what killed them and then the series blows up more,
it never made sense at face about you, but Candace
(14:00):
ran with it. She made international headlines about it, but
she is not happy about the way that it is received.
And she also seems to think that the response or
lack thereof, somehow proves her right. But I'm not sure
I buy that. Let's look at this first clip from
Candace's big episode. She dropped after her week off where
(14:23):
she went into hiding or whatever, which she broadcasts from home.
So I'm not sure why she had to do that,
but whatever, here's what she had to say, suggesting that
the Macrome's lack of a statement denying it means they
are guilty. Let's listen now.
Speaker 5 (14:39):
If you are, in fact, currently at this moment, the
first man of France, that would be Brigitte Macron.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
I'm sorry, she is funny. Love her, hate Candace if
you like me, think she's alone to her at this point,
she is funny and this image is diabolical. The just
casual referred to Brigite as the first man is humorous.
But I do not endorse these claims. I cannot verify
Brigidees genitals and I don't really care too Ron, and.
Speaker 5 (15:10):
You are currently suing a podcaster in America named Candace
Owens for defamation for telling the truth right, and the
story that you are trying to sell to the public
is that you were really, deep down in your heart,
you really believe that you are a woman, and Cannas
is just crazy and desperate for clicks and willing to
defane you for money. And Candace Owens publicly proclaiming and
(15:35):
accusing you of something not akin to directly implicated in
her assassination, a claim which has gone viral. When I
say viral, I mean just the tweet alone had over
one hundred thousand retweets and forty five million impressions on
ex alone.
Speaker 6 (15:51):
Okay, this would.
Speaker 5 (15:52):
Be your unique opportunity, as the French first man, to
prove your case about Candace to the public, right in
the court of public opinion. This would be your time
to slam dunk. Remember, the French couple has been so
psychotically obsessed with trying to paint me as conflicted in
my reporting that they even hired a private investigator to
(16:15):
try to see if I was colluding with other state actors.
Speaker 6 (16:19):
You know they holor I.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Already have a couple of questions, but one of which
is why would just like, why would they sue you
if they were also just planning to have you killed.
Why would they spend all this money having a private
investigator look into you if they were just going to
have you killed. See how she adds these pieces to
the puzzle thinking they advance her narrative, but then doesn't
think about them critically, and so even when they're actually
(16:42):
undercutting her narrative, she just moves along. She just keeps
him moving. And that's true about this whole non statement
from Emmanuel Macron or first may on her first lady,
Brigitte Macrone. Let's keep listening here.
Speaker 5 (16:56):
You know, they kind of gloriously insinuated that I might
be working with Russia. They paid for that, They paid
for that investigation. So using that logic, wouldn't this be
the opportunity, if you're the French couple, to come out
and to prove your point, to make us stunning and
a swift statement. Right, We are shocked by the accusation.
Of course, never in a million years. Oh we told
(17:17):
you guys, this is just for clicks, It's for money.
This is beyond anything we've ever heard. I hope Candice
gets well soon. That would be what I would say
you should do if I'm advising you from a PR statement.
Standpoint right, in American basketball terms, this is like a
flagrant foul and you now get some free throws.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Right.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
If you're the French couple, you're going to spend hundreds
of thousands of dollars in legal fees, investigative fees, and
PR fees in a country on the other side of
the Atlantic trying.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Again, they're going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
in legal fees and private investigator fees, but also pay
to have you killed. Wouldn't that be very wasteful and
not make sense if we're indulging this theory. But I
don't think that thought crossed Candace's mind.
Speaker 5 (18:03):
Trying desperately to paint me as a lunatic, and I
give you the opportunity to spike the ball to prove
and I'm a lunatic and you.
Speaker 6 (18:10):
Don't do it.
Speaker 5 (18:11):
No, they didn't do it, did they com paying attention,
They did not do it. It's now been a full
week since I made an announcement, and here is the
official response issued by the Las Palace.
Speaker 6 (18:24):
Nothing.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Nothing, Candace. She really is so entertaining, and she does
have a flare for the dramatic, so I think she
could actually be, you know, a neutral force, like a
neutral chaotic force, if she just stuck the celebrity gossip
or entertainment news rather than geopolitics and convincing everybody that
(18:46):
every conspiracy theory ever is actually true, and just sowing
immense distrust and discord in us of politics and institutions
beyond what is warranted, which is certainly some degree. But yeah,
the problem here is to one is that Candace is
not thinking about the fact that the Macrones are an
active litigation against Candace, and yet she's shocked that they're
(19:10):
not making public statements about her. That is what lawyers
typically advise in the middle of a court case, is
that you not publicly speak about the person you're in
court with because a statement you make could be used
against you or something could be twisted. It's like that
is pretty standard legal advice. So there is a very
innocuous explanation for why they would not put out a statement. Also,
(19:35):
them putting out a statement would call more attention to it.
I do agree that it did go viral. It already
was getting a lot of attention, but that would also
cause even more attention to be paid towards these outlandish allegations,
and it would almost kind of legitimize them in a way.
But even if you don't accept that part of it,
there is a good reason they would stay silent. That's
because they're an active litigation. And Candace has clearly chosen
(19:57):
to ignore that advice and keep talking about them. And
I can't understand why she would do that, but she
has to know that. I'm sure her lawyers advised her,
you know, probably would be best if you didn't talk
about Bridgie while we're litigating this, And she says, sorry,
but I have to. I feel it to my duty
as a journalist or truth teller or whatever. And I
can respect that, But don't act like it's crazy that
people would not actively talk about somebody that are in
(20:18):
a lawsuit with That's standard practice actually. And two, the
thing about this is you can't make an outlandish claim,
like a wild outlandish international conspiracy based on just an
anonymous source told you so, and not offer any proof
and then just use the lack of a denial as confirmation. Somehow,
You're going to need more than that for your extraordinary claims.
(20:41):
You're actually gonna need some extraordinary evidence and Also, the
funniest part about this is if, and she's literally done
this in the past, if they had put out a
statement denouncing her and denying the allegations, Candice would have
said that was the proof that she was onto something.
She would have gone the whole a hit dog route
and said, oh, they put out the whole French government
(21:04):
put out this long press release just about me, Candace
Owens the podcaster. They seem really concerned, really defensive. It's
almost like I'm over the target. That's exactly how she
would have spun it. So either way, she set herself
up with this unfalsifiable narrative and this perspective where instead
of seeking the truth, she's just seeking confirmation for the
(21:24):
things that she maybe earnestly believes are true but I
don't think are and in this case I do. She
mentioned a bunch of times, oh, people think I'm making
it up, making it up in this full video, which
I did watch. When I don't just play clips of her,
I watched the full episodes, even though they're very hard
to follow if you're not schizophrenic or postpartum psychotic. They
at one point she claimed that Britain didn't have a
(21:48):
monarch during the Revolutionary War, like she doesn't believe that
they did. I guess Candice Owens is a King George
the Third Truther, which I didn't know was a thing,
but okay, Anyway, she goes on these long rant and
(22:08):
so at one point she did mention that in the podcast,
and she kept telling people, people think I'm making it up.
I wouldn't make this up. I don't think she's make
it up. I think a hoaxter or a crazy person
sent her this tip that she's the subject of this
plot and that it's not true, but that she did
receive the tip and fell for it. I don't think
she's just inventing this all out of whole cloth. She
(22:28):
seems too much like a true believer to me for that,
and that would just be a very reckless thing to
do in the middle of an active defamation lawsuit. Do
something with actual malice, for sure. Now, Candice was not
just going off about the mat Crohnes and the First
Man of Friends or First Lady, depending on your perspective. There.
She was also targeting the US government and the Trump
(22:51):
administration and suggesting that they seem to not care about
this bombshell she's presented them with, and that could only
possibly be because they're in on it or something, not
because they think she's crazy or have investigated this extensively
and none of it is real. Anyway, Let's watch her
speak about the Trump administration and the various branches of
the federal government she contacted about this.
Speaker 5 (23:13):
Let's listen, the White House is the balls very firmly
in their court, and a week later, this is the
official White House response.
Speaker 6 (23:24):
So what are we to make of that?
Speaker 2 (23:25):
You guys, Well, Candace, I'm going to hold your hand
when I say this. They think you're crazy. Even Trump,
who loves some of conspiracy theory, who loves all sorts
of crazy people, thinks you're frickin' nuts. And they appreciate
your support in the past and are concerned about you,
(23:45):
so they don't want to go out of their way
to release statements debunking you or shitting on you. But
they don't want to say anything that will encourage you,
and they think you're insane and just want to stay
far away from you. That is the most logical way.
You could also interpret it as some of some grand
international conspiracy, but again, the Okham's razor here the most
(24:05):
likely explanation is just that even Trump thinks you're nuts.
But go off, Queen.
Speaker 5 (24:13):
Now, in terms of formal replies that we received from
government structures, the only department that we did hear back, well,
firstly say, I did not at all hear back from
the FBI. On the American side, I did hear back
from the counter Terrorism Unit.
Speaker 6 (24:29):
I did hear back from the White House.
Speaker 5 (24:31):
Confirming that that message had been delivered on Trump's desk,
me saying that I had the information. I guess he
didn't want to inquire further, which is interesting. But the
FBI left me on read. And I will say I
didn't go through an official channel and send an email,
and I showed that. But I did send a text
message to somebody very high up who received the text
(24:52):
message no response.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
Let's unpack that for a second. Guys, so you're a
subject of a an assassination plot, and rather than file
an official report or complaint with the FBI, you texted
somebody that works there. Now, I'm going to guess that
it was maybe Dan Bongino, who I think Candice had
a relationship with in the past, or maybe Cash Betel.
(25:16):
So it might even have been the FBI director or
the deputy FBI director, high ranking FBI officials. But when
a crime is occurring or has occurred against you, you
don't text people personally on their cells, right like you
inform the police, you make an official police report or
complaint or FBI complaint or report. And the fact that
(25:36):
she didn't even do that and instead chose to text
these people is suspicious, especially because filing a false official
report with the FBI is a crime, but simply texting
someone something made up to their personal cell phone or
whatever is not. So maybe she's trying to cover herself there.
I don't know, but it is not making me take
(25:58):
your while varies more seriously that you decided to text
Dan Mangino or cash MATEL or someone about this rather
than actually formally contact the FBI with all your proof
and receipts that you totally trusted and vetted but just
didn't show us. Yeah, where, this is not how you
do that. And I would love to see that text,
(26:21):
because I I'm just going to be honest. I imagine
it would very closely resemble the text that some people
get from like their schizophrenic family member. I'm sorry, no,
Tin no shade. I hope she gets help, but all right,
let's listen to the rest of this.
Speaker 6 (26:42):
Now.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
I thought that the claim of the French Foreign Legion
being involved in Charlie's asassination.
Speaker 6 (26:49):
I thought the FBI might be interested.
Speaker 5 (26:52):
No, no phone calls, even from Utah's FBI branch have.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
Well it's almost like they've extensively investigated the entire shooting
and they know there were no French legionnaires involved. So
you telling them there were isn't like? Oh, guys, well,
Candice told the I don't know. It becomes hard to
even follow her. Like I did listen to this full episode,
(27:17):
and it is so so incoherent a storyline. She starts
rambling about buildings in Delaware and who owns them and
why how some are owned by French people and Egyptian people. Like, remember, guys,
this is one of the biggest podcasters in the world
and in America. She is not a crazy person fringe
(27:39):
on the internet.
Speaker 6 (27:42):
Not great branch have come into me either.
Speaker 5 (27:45):
Why didn't you want to see aren't we supposed to
be investigating the Charlie Kirk assassination.
Speaker 6 (27:49):
It was totally not a state operation.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
And oh that's the other thing, she keeps accusing the
Trump administration basically directly, like she said, it's a military op,
and she she keeps saying they murdered him. And then
she's like, but why don't they want to text me back?
Maybe because you accuse them of murdering their friend. I'm
not sure I'd be returning your calls either, Canvas, if
(28:12):
you were spreading insane lies about me that led to
mass harassment and millions of people believing that I'm a murderer.
Speaker 5 (28:18):
Just me, though, and they really want to get to
the truth, which explains why nobody.
Speaker 6 (28:24):
Called no Utah not interested.
Speaker 5 (28:26):
I'm actually surprised Tyler Robinson's lawyer hasn't reached out to me.
Speaker 6 (28:31):
What's going on here?
Speaker 5 (28:32):
Oh, we've got to protect the patsy, right, We've got
to protect the passy in the situation.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
That last part is kind of funny because, of course,
the suspect who allegedly killed Charlie Kirk and is facing
prosecution for it, his lawyer they have pleaded not guilty,
which good luck with that. I mean, there's DNA evidence
and very extensive documentary evidence and other things. But yeah,
why haven't they contacted me? Because I don't think that
(28:59):
you would be helpful to their case unless they were
going for maybe not guilty by way of insanity. Maybe
then they could use your expertise canvas. I don't know, guys,
what do you think of the one of the biggest
podcasters in the world. To me, it is a parent
that she is not coping well. But that's just my
take and I think it will continue to spiral. But
(29:22):
as long as she continues to get millions of views
on her very frequent, heavily sponsored Leyden episodes, I think
the incentive structures are there for her to keep doing
this and to frankly take it even further. What do
y'all think? Let me know in the comments, Make sure
subscribe to the like button, YadA YadA yah, and that'll
(29:42):
be it for today's episode the Brad Versus Everyone Podcast.
Thanks so much for tuning in, and we will talk
again real so
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com